Monday, June 7, 2010

High Court (U.S. Supreme Court) Asks if Sex Offender Case Is Moot

6-7-2010 Washington DC:

CN) - The [U.S.] Supreme Court on Monday asked the Montana Supreme Court for guidance on whether a juvenile can challenge national requirements to register as a sex offender. The state court's answers will help the justices decide if the case is moot.

The respondent in the case is a male juvenile who engaged in sex acts with a child under 12. He was sentenced in 2005 to two years' detention and juvenile supervision until his 21st birthday.

The following year, Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which requires juveniles who commit serious sex crimes to register as sex offenders. The U.S. attorney general said this requirement applied to all sex offenders, including those convicted before the law was enacted.

In 2007 a federal judge revoked the respondent's supervision and sentenced him to another six months of detention for failing to comply with the conditions of his prerelease program.

The government invoked SORNA's juvenile registration requirements, arguing that the juvenile offender should have to register as a sex offender at least through the duration of his supervision, which expired on May 2, 2008.

The government asked the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit's decision that the respondent did not have to register as a sex offender during supervision, because those requirements can't be applied retroactively.

Now that the juvenile's supervision has ended, the Supreme Court must decide if the case is moot.

It certified the following question to the Montana Supreme Court:

"Is respondent's duty to remain registered as a sex offender under Montana law contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his now-expired federal juvenile-supervision order that required him to register as a sex offender, or is the duty an independent requirement of Montana law that is unaffected by the validity or invalidity of the federal juvenile-supervision conditions?"

The justices said the Montana high court's answer "will help determine whether this case presents a live case or controversy." ..Source.. by Court House News

Read More of Article...

Sunday, June 6, 2010

States close down youth prisons as reforms take hold, helping them save money in budget crisis

6-6-2010 National:

After struggling for years to treat young criminals in razor wire-ringed institutions, states across the country are quietly shuttering dozens of reformatories amid plunging juvenile arrests, softer treatment policies and bleak budgets.

In Ohio, the number of juvenile offenders has plummeted by nearly half over the last two years, pushing the state to close three facilities. California's closures include a youth institution near Los Angeles that operated for nearly 115 years. And one in Texas will finally go quiet after getting its start as a World War II-era training base.

The closures have juvenile advocates cheering.

"I can tell you it's the best thing they can do," said Aaron Kupchik, a University of Delaware criminologist. "Incarceration does nobody any good. You're taking away most of their chance for normal development."

Several factors have pushed states to close facilities. In stark contrast to the growing adult prison population, the number of juveniles in state lockups has dropped dramatically, partly because there are fewer juvenile arrests and more offenders in county-based treatment programs. States grappling with busted budgets can't afford to operate facilities with so many empty beds.

State reformatories are typically reserved for serious criminals, such as sex offenders and other violent offenders. Unlike the punishment-oriented adult system, juvenile justice focuses on rehabilitation.

During the early 1990s, though, tough-on-crime legislators turned to the juvenile system. Nearly every state lowered the minimum age for kids to be tried as adults or increased the kind of crimes that land kids in the adult system.

But juvenile arrest rates dropped, falling 33 percent between 1997 and 2008, according to the latest U.S. Justice Department data.

Criminologists aren't sure why fewer kids are getting in trouble. Some believe more kids are avoiding drug trafficking. Others think programs such as group homes, halfway houses and after-school tutoring closer to kids' homes have reduced recidivism.

"No fancy stats suggest this is a cure-all, but what I think you do see is the accumulation of those small results of people doing this increasingly in cities and towns all across the country," said Elliot Currie, a University of California-Irvine criminologist.

Those reforms have gained momentum as studies found teens sent to adult court often got in worse trouble after they were released and lawsuits emerged over poor conditions at state lockups. Many states have tweaked their juvenile polices so only the most serious offenders land in their systems.

"We're locking up the right kids," said Bart Lubow, program director for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which helps fund such juvenile offender programs. "It's about making smarter decisions."

As a result, the number of juveniles in state institutions has dropped. According to the Justice Department, the number of juvenile offenders declined 26 percent between 2000 and 2008, from about 109,000 to 80,000.

All the empty beds offer states struggling with budget deficits a way to save money _ downsize juvenile justice systems.

The number of kids in state residential custody in California peaked at 10,000 in 1996 but now stands at 1,500, said state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Bill Sessa. The state has closed six institutions since 2003, most notably the Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility, which had operated just outside Los Angeles since 1890. State officials keep the institution clean for film crews; the paranormal research television series "The Othersiders" investigated reports of bangs and voices there in an episode last year.

The closings have generated as much as $40 million in savings for the state's juvenile justice department through job reductions, Sessa said.

In Texas, the state's residential juvenile population has dropped from 5,000 kids in 2007 to about 1,900 this spring, said Texas Youth Commission spokesman Jim Hurley. His state has closed three facilities since 2007 and plans to close two more. Hurley said it was unclear how much money that saved.

In Ohio, the state's residential youth population has fallen from about 1,730 kids as of mid-2008 to about 950 today. Its three closures over the last year should save about $40 million annually, according to juvenile corrections officials.

Some of the closed reformatories around the country will become adult prisons. Others are up for sale, like the one in Kansas that closed in 2008 saving the state $3.7 million.

In Wisconsin, state corrections officials are considering closing the Ethan Allen School, a former tuberculosis sanitarium near Wales, about 25 miles west of Milwaukee. The school's population has dropped from 460 in 1998 to 195 in May.

Since counties generally pay the state to house juvenile offenders from their area, the overall decrease in Wisconsin's jailed juvenile population has created a $25 million budget shortfall. Ethan Allen officials worry about what will happen if it closes, but they're trying to stay focused on their kids.

It was life as usual on a recent spring day at Ethan Allen. Sunshine sparkled on the concertina wire that topped the fence surrounding the sprawling campus.

In one class, social worker Melinda Aiken discussed emotion management.

"Why does it take courage to make a positive change?" Aiken asked.

"If you're scared," a boy replied, "you ain't never going to get anywhere."

Aiken nodded.

"It's going to take a lot of strength," she said. "You guys can do it. Tap into that." ..Source.. TODD RICHMOND

Read More of Article...

Fault Lines - Dying Inside: Elderly in prison

6-6-2010 National:

The US' massive prison population is getting older.

Long sentences that were handed out decades ago are catching up with the American justice system.

Prisons across the country are dedicating entire units just to house the elderly.

During difficult economic times, the issue has hit a crisis point. Estimates are that locking up an older inmate costs three times as much as a younger one.

How are prisons dealing with this issue? Who are the prisoners that are turning gray behind bars?

Josh Rushing gains exclusive and unprecedented access to jails and prisons across the country to tell the story. ..Source.. by Fault Lines



Read More of Article...

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Is Ohio "In Compliance" According to the Adam Walsh Act?

6-5-2010 Ohio:

Well the latest Ohio Supreme court decision ( State -v- Bodyke ) may have thrown a monkey wrench into Ohio's ability to dodge being docked 10% of their Federal Byrne Grant funding. However, the Adam Walsh Act has some interesting verbiage on "compliance" where a State's highest court is concerned. See:
SEC. 125. FAILURE OF JURISDICTION TO COMPLY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—For any fiscal year after the end of the period for implementation, a jurisdiction that fails, as determined by the Attorney General, to substantially implement this title shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the jurisdiction under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.).

(b) STATE CONSTITUTIONALITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain provisions that would place the jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(2) EFFORTS.—If the circumstances arise under paragraph (1), then the Attorney General and the jurisdiction shall make good faith efforts to accomplish substantial implementation of this title and to reconcile any conflicts between this title and the jurisdiction’s constitution. In considering whether compliance with the requirements of this title would likely violate the jurisdiction’s constitution or an interpretation thereof by the jurisdiction’s highest court, the Attorney General shall consult with the chief executive and chief legal officer of the jurisdiction concerning the jurisdiction’s interpretation of the jurisdiction’s constitution and rulings thereon by the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(3) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES.—If the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a limitation imposed by the jurisdiction’s constitution, the Attorney General may determine that the jurisdiction is in compliance with this Act if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act.

(4) FUNDING REDUCTION.—If a jurisdiction does not comply with paragraph (3), then the jurisdiction shall be subject to a funding reduction as specified in subsection (a).


Ohio AG: In response to the court’s decision in the case of State v. Bodyke, Attorney General Richard Cordray released the following statement:
We are digesting the Supreme Court’s decision, which appears to be limited in scope. The broad provisions of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act remain in place. In striking down a narrow portion of the act, the court has reinstated the classifications and community notification and registration orders imposed by judges under prior state law for certain offenders who had been sentenced before Jan. 1, 2008,” said Cordray. “Offenders who were classified on or after Jan. 1, 2008 are unaffected by today’s ruling. Those 26,000 offenders who had been reclassified under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act will now revert to their prior classifications before the act was passed. To comply with the court’s order, my office will work to reclassify these offenders through Ohio’s Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification database (eSORN) and will notify offenders of their new classification. We will also continue to support local law enforcement agencies as they work to provide families with the information they need to keep their children safe.”

Its what he doesn't say that tells us what he is really doing. AWA tells him this " if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act." So reality is, he is working with the SMART Office conjuring up something, an alternative procedure!

Folks thats what he is doing, conjuring up some way to assure that Ohio doesn't lose that funding. Changing settings on the public registry, well thats being handled by some programmer.

So the AG is asking himself, -an alternative procedure- "How can I reclassify, or make it look like those convicted before 1-1-2008 have been reclassified," to prevent money from going out the window?

Any bets on what he comes up with? My guess is, it will somehow be punitive. But, in the meantime, is Ohio in-compliance?

eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Supreme Court places temporal limits on SORNA

6-5-2010 Washington DC:

The Supreme Court recently addressed the question of whether SORNA criminalizes the failure to register as a sex offender, when a registered sex offender in Alabama relocated to Indiana without complying with the Indiana’s registration requirements, before SORNA’s enactment. In Carr v. United States, the Supreme Court held that SORNA did not apply to this situation.

Enacted in 2006, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) makes it a federal crime for any person (1) who “is required to register under [SORNA],” and (2) who “travels in interstate or foreign commerce,” to (3) “knowingly fai[l] to register or update a registration,” 18 U. S. C. §2250(a). Carr was indicted under §2250 post-SORNA. Carr entered a conditional plea. Affirming the conviction, the Seventh Circuit held that §2250 did not require that a defendant’s travel postdate SORNA and that reliance on a defendant’s pre-SORNA travel poses no ex post facto problem so long as the defendant had a reasonable time to register post-SORNA and failed to do so.

The Supreme Court found that the statute does not impose liability unless a person, after becoming subject to SORNA’s registration requirements, travels across state lines and then fails to register. That interpretation was based on §2250(a)’s text, the first element of which can only be satisfied when a person “is required to register under SORNA.” §2250(a)(1). That §2250 sets forth the travel requirement in the present tense (”travels”) rather than in the past or present perfect (”traveled” or “has traveled”) reinforced this conclusion.

The Court rejected the argument that its holding would create an anomaly in the statute’s coverage of federal versus state sex offenders. Section 2250 imposes criminal liability on two categories of persons who fail to adhere to SORNA’s registration requirements: any person who is a sex offender “by reason of a conviction under Federal law … ,” §2250(a)(2)(A), and any other person required to register under SORNA who “travels in interstate or foreign commerce,” §2250(a)(2)(B). The Court found it entirely reasonable for Congress to have assigned the Federal Government a special role in ensuring compliance with SORNA’s registration requirements by federal sex offenders, who typically would have spent time under federal criminal supervision. The Court also found it reasonable that Congress would have given the States primary responsibility for supervising and ensuring compliance among state sex offenders and to have subjected such offenders to federal criminal liability only when, after SORNA’s enactment, they use interstate commerce channels to evade a State’s reach.

Based on SORNA’s structure, there was no reason to doubt that Congress intended §2250 to do exactly what it says: to subject to federal prosecution sex offenders who elude SORNA’s registration requirements by traveling in interstate commerce. Because §2250 liability could not be predicated on pre-SORNA travel, the Court did not address whether the statute violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.

SORNA’s requirements are considerable. This decision has the effect of holding its enforcement to the elements contained therein. The Court rejected the opportunity to base its decision on the “purpose” of the statute as opposed to the specific statutory language. ..Opinion of.. Kim Deater

Read More of Article...

Chelsea's Law

A law driven by fear, and founded on theories for which there is not poof that they will make society safer. Finally, fiscally sound, no, taxpayer pocketbooks are raped as well.
6-5-2010 California:

An Inland Empire lawmaker said today he is seeking the Legislature's swift approval of four bills to bolster Chelsea's Law, the legislation to increase penalties for sex offenders approved by the Assembly on Thursday.

"I'm very pleased to see the unanimous passage of Chelsea's Law,'' said Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Beaumont. "This bill will help protect our children from predators. I believe that the bills I'm working on with Assemblyman Pedro Nava ... will take this protection a step further by helping law enforcement find missing children.''

The Senate Public Safety Committee is expected to hold hearings on Chelsea's Law in the next two weeks. Among other things, the measure calls for a "one-strike'' life sentence without parole for various sex crimes against children.

Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, sponsored the legislation, AB 1844, in the wake of the murders of 17-year-old Chelsea King of Poway and 14- year-old Amber Dubois of Escondido.

Both were raped and murdered by John Albert Gardner III, 31, who was sentenced to three consecutive life terms without parole last month. He was convicted of beating and molesting a child in 2000 and remains the prime suspect suspected in the attempted abduction of a Lake Elsinore girl in October 2009.

Cook said he and Nava have been communicating with the Dubois family about the types of changes needed in California's laws to prevent future sex- related crimes against children and ensure law enforcement has all available resources in place when a child is taken.

The lawmakers have jointly introduced Assembly bills 33, 34, 589 and 1022, which Cook urged his fellow lawmakers to support.

"The Dubois bills are essential to making sure that missing children are found in the most efficient way possible,'' he said. "These bills give us the best chance to recover a child safely and prevent new crimes from being committed.''

Under AB 33, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training would establish ``minimum guidelines'' for how law enforcement personnel handle missing person or runaway cases.

Municipal agencies could rely on the state standards or implement better ones, with the goal of law enforcement having, within two hours, "a list of all persons required to register as sex offenders residing within a five-mile radius from the place ... the child was believed to have been abducted.''
AB 34 calls for the state's Violent Crime Information Center to release missing persons reports to nonprofit groups registered with the Attorney

General's Office for the purpose of getting the word out as fast as possible about missing children.
Under existing law, the VCIC is only required to notify law enforcement agencies.

AB 589 would mandate that registered sex offenders carry driver's licenses or other state-issued identification cards that have a "distinctive color or a distinctively colored stripe'' to denote the holder is a convicted sex offender.

Under AB 1022, the California Department of Justice would set up a "Missing Person Rapid Response Team'' available to assist any local law enforcement agency with missing persons investigations on short notice.

The costs of the proposed legislation are projected to be nominal.

"With Chelsea King and Amber Dubois, we have two young women who will never be able to enjoy the fullness of life because we allowed a known sex offender to commit additional crimes, which resulted in their murders,'' Cook said.

"As legislators, we must commit to protecting future children from experiencing the same fate, especially by repeat offenders,'' he said.
The bills are slated for consideration in the Senate later this month. No opponents to the proposals were listed by legislative analysts. ..Source.. KPSP Local 2 News Services

Read More of Article...

Mom fights developmentally disabled son's 'sexual predator' label

6-5-2010 Arizaona:

Every weekend this month, Jo Stack will be on a plane en route to Greeley.

The Apache Junction, Ariz., resident hasn't even added up her travel bill as her son, Larry Flippo, sits in a Weld County Jail cell awaiting his fate for violating the terms of his probation — for no other reason than a treatment provider won't sign on to treat him.

Now, in protest, every Monday and Tuesday, Stack will be at the Weld County Courthouse plaza with signs and fliers, wearing her T-shirt that says, “My son is not a sexually violent predator.”

Flippo, 38, has been convicted twice of raping a Denver woman in June 2001. Flippo, who is developmentally disabled, was living on his own for the first time when he arranged for the woman to visit his Greeley apartment for a week. The first night she was there, however, she said he raped her. His mother said Flippo thought they were going to live happily ever after.

His first conviction in 2002 resulted in an eight-year prison sentence; that was overturned in 2005 because his first jury wasn't allowed to learn of his developmental disabilities, which include emotional and intellectual delays. He was convicted at a second trial in November 2009, but this time sentenced to 10 years to life on probation under the condition he be under 24/7 supervision and receive sex offender treatment.

This time, Flippo was labeled a sexually violent predator, a distinction he was not given after his first conviction. Such a label has essentially made it impossible to find a treatment provider to accept him, which advocates say is more about fear than anything else. Without a provider, he's technically violating the terms of his probation and could be returned to prison.

Stack sat through both trials, saying little. But this time, she's speaking out as she protests the way her son has been treated by the judge and jury and the Weld County Probation Department. She has alleged judge misconduct, jury disinterest and collusion within the system to put her son back in prison rather than deal with his treatment issues.

“In my opinion, they carefully orchestrated this knowing he was going to go back to prison,” Stack said.

Larry McDermott, executive director of The Arc of Weld County, which advocates for people with developmental disabilities, said though he feels Flippo must be held accountable for his actions, he thinks the system is not adequately addressing his case and a growing number of others.

“It's like special ed in school,” McDermott said. “I think our folks can learn, but they need special accommodations. I'm not saying someone convicted of crime should not have consequences, but how those consequences are administered needs to be addressed.”

Weld District Court Judge Gilbert Gutierrez would not comment about the case. Kevin Nelan, chief probation officer for Weld County, likewise would not comment about Flippo's case, though he did say that the probation department was not involved in labeling him a sexually violent predator. ..Source.. Sharon Dunn

Read More of Article...

Friday, June 4, 2010

Sex offender advised to leave Lansing Council meeting

6-4-2010 Michigan:

Meeting was to discuss rental of city facilities by sex offenders

A convicted sex offender on probation left a public Lansing City Council meeting Thursday night at the urging of the city parks director, which is an apparent violation of the state Open Meetings Act.

Adrian Hill left a public meeting at the Foster Community Center that was to discuss a possible city rule against sex offenders renting city facilities. Hill’s attempted rental of Lett’s Community Center for a charitable event spurred the meeting, which was of the Council Public Safety Committee.

Before the meeting began, Parks and Recreation Director Murdock Jemerson called Hill into an office and told him that his presence at the meeting could be a probation violation. Jemerson told Hill that cameras at the center were recording his presence there, which police and probation officials could watch. Both Hill and Jemerson confirmed the details of the conversation.

Hill said that in order to avoid a confrontation, he agreed and left the community center.

"I told (Jemerson) I didn't want to leave," Hill said in a phone interview Friday morning. "I said I wanted to speak for myself. He said it was best for me to leave."

Hill said that during that meeting Jemerson called Lansing Police Chief Teresa Szymanski to check on Hill's probation restrictions. On Friday, a police official speaking anonymously said that Hill was not in violation of any of the terms of his probation, nor of state law. Szymanski did not return emails seeking comment for this story.

Hill was arrested in April on the warrant for failing to register as a sex offender, a misdemeanor. He pleaded guilty in May and is serving nine months’ probation, a suspended jail sentence and almost $800 in fees. Under state law, sex offenders cannot be within 1,000 feet of schools, but the law does not prohibit proximity to preschools or community centers.

Robin Luce-Herrmann, an attorney specializing in the Open Meetings Act for the Michigan Press Association, says Jemerson’s actions may have violated the law.

"Let me put it this way," Luce-Herrmann said, “it's certainly a violation of the spirit of the Open Meetings Act to try to persuade people from attending a public meeting, even if they weren't forcibly removed."

A handbook on the law produced by the Michigan Attorney General's office says, "no one may be excluded from a meeting otherwise open to the public except for a breach of the peace actually committed at the meeting."

Lansing City Attorney Brigham Smith disagreed with Luce-Herrmann.

"The opinion of the Office of the City Attorney is that no Open Meetings Act violation occurred," Smith wrote in an email. "Mr. Hill's departure from the meeting was ‘a mutual decision’ based on the uncertainty regarding whether his presence constituted a probation violation. He was therefore not ‘excluded’ as that term is used in the OMA."

"I think it is troublesome to exclude anybody," Luce-Herrmann said. "It is particularly troubling when somebody with a particular viewpoint on an issue before a public body doesn't have the opportunity to comment."

Hill said that he is considering seeking an attorney

In 2004, Hill communicated with an undercover state police officer pretending to be a 13-year-old female Lansing Everett High School student, according to court records. Court transcripts reveal Hill sent dozens of emails, many of them sexually explicit, and ultimately arranged a meeting with the fictional teen in Biggie Munn Park in Lansing for oral sex. Instead, Hill was met by Lansing and state police.

Hill was convicted in 2005 of accosting or soliciting a minor for immoral purposes. As part of his sentence, he was ordered to register as a sex offender until 2030. However, Lansing Police say he stopped registered in 2007. ..Source.. TODD HEYWOOD

Read More of Article...

Tennessee Senate drops juvenile sex offender registry

6-4-2010 Tennessee:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - The Senate sponsor of a measure to create a juvenile sexual offender registry has withdrawn the measure because the House decided against funding it.

Republican Sen. Diane Black of Gallatin said she was disappointed that the bill won't become law this year.

Black said there has been "a lot of misrepresentation" about the bill. She said information about the worst juvenile sex crimes are already public record.

Democratic Sen. Eric Stewart of Belvidere said he supported the measures. In his words: "We protect the wrong kids sometimes, we need to protect the right kids." ..Source.. by WMC TV.com

Read More of Article...

The Crunch in Federal Prisons

6-4-2010 National:

More prisoners are doing federal time than ever, but Congress isn’t allocating enough funds to pay for them. Prison officials and reformers say a rethink of the system is long overdue.

While cash-strapped states are responding to the nation’s economic crisis by looking for ways to reduce their prison populations, the federal prison system is heading in the opposite direction.


Last year, the 115 federal prisons added 7,000 inmates to their rolls, making a total of 211,000 inmates in federal facilities as of early June—and the figure is expected to grow. The number of federal criminal cases filed annually has increased from 69,575 in fiscal year 2005 to 76,655 in FY 2009.

To make matters more difficult, federal funding isn’t keeping up with the extra burden.

At a U.S. Sentencing Commission hearing in Washington, D.C. last week, U.S. Attorney for Atlanta Sally Quillian Yates said that federal facilities are currently operating at 34 per cent above capacity. And that, she warned, will have “real and detrimental consequences for the safety of prisoners and guards, effective prisoner reentry, and ultimately, public safety.”

The White House appears to have recognized the problem. President Barack Obama is seeking a $600 million increase in the prison system’s budget for next year. The proposal includes filling an additional 1,200 correctional staff positions and opening three new facilities.

But the question is whether a budget-conscious Congress will go along. The prison system already eats up $6.8 billion, making it the second-largest component of the Justice Department’s budget, just below the FBI.

What accounts for the rise in federal prison inmates?

While white-collar criminals like Bernard Madoff get a big share of news coverage, they constitute only a small minority of the federal prison population. Slightly over half of current federal prisoners (52 percent) are doing time for drug-related crimes. While the average sentence for drug trafficking has held steady in recent years (six to seven years), it is a key factor contributing to the pressure on federal prisons. Another factor is the government’s crackdown on immigration violators, who account for another 11 percent of federal prisoners. An additional eight percent are in for for violent crimes. Adding to the pressure, about 11 percent of federal prisoners require high-security facilities. ..For the remainder of this article.. Jessica Pupovac

Read More of Article...

Action Alert: Supp. Guidelines - Section I (B Internet Identifiers) Part-1

6-5-2010 Washington DC:

LAST UPDATE: 6-21-2010

There is much folks need to know BEFORE commenting on e-mail addresses and Internet Identifiers. This Supp. Guideline (SG) flows from a 2008 federal law called "the Kid's Act" also known as "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators." Concerns with the SG on "Internet Ids" are of TWO types: 1) What the SG actually covers; -AND- 2) What the SG does not cover, that ought to be addressed. This post will address #1 only. With that said
:


History: This is a very touchy subject for all RSOs: Remember when John McCain was posturing for the Presidency? Well, he wasn't doing well, so like all politicians, he pulls out the sex offender issue to hopefully spring board him into office. Well it didn't work, but what he did then, is now about to hurt all RSOs, nationally, and into the future.

Congressional Background: Sen. McCain (AZ) joined forces with Sen. Schumer (NY) and proposed this bill in Congress "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008" also known as "The Kids Act" or S-431 and in 2008 enacted into law by 110th Congress: The Kid's Act. It was FAST TRACKED and passed under the 'Suspension of the Rules" nonsense, which I believe is the most unconstitutional procedure in Congressional rules, simply because it can be misused.

Our Earlier Blogging on The Kid's Act: As a refresher folks may want to read "Congress passes Schumer and McCain's S-431 Amended bill, obviously a political campaign move," just so folks know who the good guys in Congress are..
Back then I blogged copiously on that S-431 Kid's Act, and tried to get folks to submit comments to their respective Senators and Representatives in Congress, and even if folks made those contacts it was for naught, FAST TRACK and "Under Suspension of the Rules" overrode all efforts. Well, thats water over the dam, what can folks do today because that law (The Kids Act) has never been put into guidelines for comment until today in these NEW Supplemental Guidelines. Now is the time for comments!

Unfortunately this post is going to get into technical points, so I think it best to include the SG portion covering "Internet Identifiers" below, and I'll highlight concerns that will be addressed:

B. Internet Identifiers (pg-3 SG)

The KIDS Act, which was enacted in 2008, directed the Attorney General to utilize pre-existing legal authorities under SORNA to adopt certain measures relating to sex offenders’ ‘‘Internet identifiers,’’ defined to mean e-mail addresses and other designations used for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting. The KIDS Act requires the Attorney General to (i) include appropriate Internet identifier information in the registration information sex offenders are required to provide, (ii) specify the time and manner for keeping that information current, (iii) exempt such information from public Web site posting, and (iv) ensure that procedures are in place to notify sex offenders of resulting obligations. See 42 U.S.C. 16915a.

The SORNA Guidelines incorporate requirements (i)–(ii) and (iv), as described above. See 73 FR at 38055 (Internet identifiers to be included in registration information), 38066 (reporting of changes in Internet identifiers), 38063–65 (notifying sex offenders of SORNA requirements). However, while the Guidelines discouraged the inclusion of sex offenders’ Internet identifiers on the public Web sites, they did not adopt a mandatory exclusion of this information from public Web site posting, which the KIDS Act now requires. See 42 U.S.C. 16915a(c); 73 FR at 38059–60.

The authority under 42 U.S.C. 16918(b)(4) to create additional mandatory exemptions from public Web site disclosure is accordingly exercised to exempt sex offenders’ Internet identifiers from public Web site posting. This means that jurisdictions cannot, consistent with SORNA, include sex offenders’ Internet identifiers (such as email addresses) in the sex offenders’ public Web site postings or otherwise list or post sex offenders’ Internet identifiers on the public sex offender Web sites.

This change does not limit jurisdictions’ retention and use of sex offenders’ Internet identifier information for purposes other than public disclosure, including submission of the information to the national (nonpublic) databases of sex offender information, sharing of the information with law enforcement and supervision agencies, and sharing of the information with registration authorities in other jurisdictions. See 73 FR at 38060. The change also does not limit the discretion of jurisdictions to include on their public Web sites functions by which members of the public can ascertain whether a specified e-mail address or other Internet identifier is reported as that of a registered sex offender, see id. at 38059–60, or to disclose Internet identifier information to any one by means other than public Web site posting.

The exemption of sex offenders’ Internet identifiers from public Web site disclosure does not override or limit the requirement that sex offenders’ names, including any aliases, be included in their public Web site postings. See 73 FR at 38059. A sex offender’s use of his name or an alias to identify himself or for other purposes in Internet communications or postings does not exempt the name or alias from public Web site disclosure.


It is quite clear that prohibiting public disclosure of registrants' e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers is to prevent harassment or crimes committed against the registrant or his/her family. This is a valid public safety concern. This coupled with SORNA's mandate to post a Public Warning against such incidents provides bare minimum protections for registrants.
42 USC 16918. SEC. 118. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION THROUGH THE INTERNET.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this section, each jurisdiction shall make available on the Internet, in a manner that is readily accessible to all jurisdictions .....

(f) WARNING.—The site shall include a warning that information on the site should not be used to unlawfully injure, harass, or commit a crime against any individual named in the registry or residing or working at any reported address. The warning shall note that any such action could result in civil or criminal penalties.

With that said, on to SG concerns:


POINT-1: What is the definition of "Jurisdiction" for the purpose of this SG? Notice this:
"This change does not limit jurisdictions’ retention and use of sex offenders’ Internet identifier information for purposes other than public disclosure, including submission of the information to the national (nonpublic) databases of sex offender information, sharing of the information with law enforcement and supervision agencies, and sharing of the information with registration authorities in other jurisdictions."

It seems clear that "jurisdiction" means the "State" and does not include its political sub-divisions. (ex: County or local law enforcement, or other pseudo-jurisdictions or places mentioned [see red above]). Assuming such to be true, there may be a major loophole, often such places will contract with third party vendors to handle a local public sex offender website for them. i.e., Offender Watch (or similar services from other vendors should they exist)... (These websites often contain errors without any method of correction).

Once the above are provided registrants' Internet information, there is nothing in the current SG to prohibit such third party places from publicly posting registrants' e-mail addresses or other Internet identifiers. Further, registrants would have no way of knowing how they will use the information. Accordingly, these places need to be regulated or denied registrants' Internet information.

UPDATED: 6-21-2010:The SMART office tells us that "jurisdiction" DOES NOT include the lower political subdivisions of the state. see: Final Guidelines page-5-6:
A- Terminology ---
These Guidelines use key terms with the meanings defined in SORNA. In particular, the term “jurisdiction” is consistently used with the meaning set forth in SORNA § 111(10). As defined in that provision, it refers to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the five principal U.S. territories—i.e., the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands—and Indian tribes that elect to function as registration jurisdictions under SORNA § 127. (For more concerning covered jurisdictions, see Part III of these Guidelines.) Thus, when these Guidelines refer to “jurisdictions ” implementing the SORNA registration and notification requirements, the reference is to implementation of these requirements by the jurisdictions specified in SORNA § 111(10). “Jurisdictions” is not used to refer to other territorial or political units or subdivisions, such as counties, cities, or towns of states or territories. .....

Accordingly, before someone opens that loophole, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134.

To Whom It May Concern:
THIRD PARTY VENDORS and OTHER JURISDICTIONS: Prohibition of publishing registrants e-mail address and other Internet identifiers publicly, MUST be EXTENDED, to third pseudo-jurisdictions who often have or run (as a contracted service)local public sex offender websites. (ex: Offender Watch) This supplemental guideline wording appears to exclude "many" who may not protect registrants' information if they are provided registrants' information, and registrants may suffer civilly or criminally. These need to be regulated or denied registrants' information.

Thank you.



POINT-2: This Supplemental Guideline also permits "jurisdictions' (Federal and State) to release e-mail addresses and Internet Identifiers to anyone they choose to, as long as the release is not via a public website (State Registry). Notice this:
... "or to disclose Internet identifier information to any one by means other than public Web site posting.

Talk about devious, this circumvents privacy rights! This SG is drawing a distinction between Internet information being "mass posted publicly" or "handing same out privately." Either way, the U.S. Supreme court in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995) has held that all citizens have a right to anonymous free speech, including on the Internet.

While registrants may choose to allow close friends to have their Internet Identifiers (or certain identifiers), beyond that, registrants closely guard their identifiers. The majority of registrants use their identifiers to converse with family and friends, and to discuss their status as registrants, politically and religiously, as permitted under constitutional Free Speech laws.

Permitting distribution of registrants e-mail addresses and Internet IDs -without consent- PRIVATELY violates registrants Federal Privacy rights (Title 5 USC. 552a(b)) which required specific written approval of the registrant before distribution. Further, registrants having committed no new offense, are merely trying to get on with life in a politically induced hostile society, and not a concern or threat to anyone (except in political and media minds), accordingly none of the "Title 5" exceptions would apply.

Unfortunately, the law that spawned this proposed guideline, "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008" (i.e. the Kid's Act), does imply, if not directly accuse, every registrant of being a "Internet Sexual Predator," without evidence or probable cause, or a hearing where registrants can refute the implied assertion, tainting registrants' Internet reputation and character worldwide.

In addition, the Terms of Agreement of where registrants have their e-mail addresses require that registrants be responsible for its security and use. Once Id's are arbitrarily given out to someone unknown to registrant, who knows how they will use it, and then registrants are responsible for the actions of that unknown party.

Considering above, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134.

To Whom it May Concern:
DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNET Ids by means OTHER THAN PUBLIC WEB SITE: To allow such distribution -without notice and specific registrant approval- would violate all registrants' federal privacy rights (Title 5 USC 552a(b)), and the Terms of Agreements registrants have with Yahoo, Google, etc. which hold registrants responsible for their Id's security and use.

Should specific Internet Id's be released to someone, registrant would have no way to track who the unknown party is, or how they use the ID, and any misuse would make registrant responsible and may even result in criminal charges. Registrants have a right (5 USC 55a(c)(3)) to know who the unknown party is, and a system must be created to specifically notify and obtain a registrant's approval before handing out private Internet information.

Registrants Internet character and reputation have already been stained by politics and the media treatment of all registrants, a registrant does not need some unknown person making matters worse and possibly placing them or their family in harms way.

Thank you..




PS: Did everyone notice "the national (nonpublic) databases of sex offender information." That tweaks the mind to wonder what national nonpublic databases there are, say other than the FBI? One thought is, that somewhere -on the federal level- there may be contracts with private vendors who also have access to registrants' files. So, if anyone has any idea what they may mean, please comment as I am sure eveyrone would love to know.
END OF POST

Read More of Article...

Ohio's Attorney General Statement in Response to Ohio Supreme Court Decision in State v. Bodyke

6-4-2010 Ohio:

(COLUMBUS, Ohio) – In a narrowly tailored decision today, the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds. The act was passed by the General Assembly in July 2007 and became effective on Jan. 1, 2008. In response to the court’s decision in the case of State v. Bodyke, Attorney General Richard Cordray released the following statement:

“We are digesting the Supreme Court’s decision, which appears to be limited in scope. The broad provisions of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act remain in place. In striking down a narrow portion of the act, the court has reinstated the classifications and community notification and registration orders imposed by judges under prior state law for certain offenders who had been sentenced before Jan. 1, 2008,” said Cordray. “Offenders who were classified on or after Jan. 1, 2008 are unaffected by today’s ruling. Those 26,000 offenders who had been reclassified under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act will now revert to their prior classifications before the act was passed. To comply with the court’s order, my office will work to reclassify these offenders through Ohio’s Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification database (eSORN) and will notify offenders of their new classification. We will also continue to support local law enforcement agencies as they work to provide families with the information they need to keep their children safe.”

Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act was enacted to bring Ohio’s offender notification laws into conformity with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Ohio was the first state to reach substantial implementation of the federal standards, as certified by the U.S. Department of Justice. Nothing in today’s decision affects Ohio’s status in regard to maintaining this designation. Other provisions of the act have been challenged in separate cases that remain pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. ..Source.. by Ohio's Attorney General's Office Press Release

Read More of Article...

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Ohio Supreme Court: Give sex offenders old classifications

6-3-2010 Ohio:

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday threw out sections of a new sex-offender law, saying the Legislature violated the constitution when it forced state officials to change convicts' classifications to comply with federal Adam Walsh Act provisions.

The ruling means that sex offenders convicted before the law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2008, would revert back to the classifications they received under the old Megan's Law — and potentially be subject to less stringent registration and notification requirements. The ruling leaves in place the new, tougher requirements for those convicted since.

A spokeswoman for state Attorney General Richard Cordray said the office was working to identify how many offenders would be affected by the ruling.

Ohio was the first state to put substantially in place a new sex offender registration and notification system required by the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Delaware and Florida have since complied. The 2006 law is named for a 6-year-old Florida boy who was abducted and killed in 1981. His father, John Walsh, is the host of TV's "America's Most Wanted."

The U.S. law, signed by President George W. Bush, sought to get states to better coordinate and expand their sex-offender registries.

In its 5-1 decision, the high court said that Ohio's implementation violated the separation of powers among branches of government because the Legislature was forcing the executive branch to revisit decisions made by judges.

Under Ohio's new Adam Walsh Law, old Megan's Law classifications such as "sexually-oriented criminal" or "sexual predator" were replaced with a tiered classification system. Offenders were moved into the new tiers based solely on the offense they had committed, whereas Megan's Law had allowed judges to hold a hearing and use some discretion in assigning offenders a category.

Writing for the majority, Justice Maureen O'Connor said the earlier judges' decisions were binding. Only courts can change the decisions of courts.

"It is well settled that a legislature cannot enact laws that revisit a final judgment," she wrote. "We have held for over a century that 'the Legislature cannot annul, reverse, or modify a judgment of a court already rendered.'"

The case decided Thursday involved three men convicted of sex-related crimes in 2007. The three — Christian Bodyke, David Schwab and Gerald Phillips — underwent formal hearings called for under the old law and were assigned categories that required postrelease registration with the sheriff in the county where they live.

In November 2007, they received letters from the attorney general saying the law had been changed and, as of Jan. 1, 2008, they would considered Tier III offenders. The reclassification subjected them to more stringent registration and community-notification requirements.

Thursday's ruling marked the second legal setback this year to efforts by state lawmakers to apply the tough new national sex offender law's provisions.

In a unanimous decision in March, justices found that the new Ohio law's wording on community notification conflicted with its intention.

Lawmakers had intended for communities to be notified every time a sex offender in the most severe category began living, working or going to school in their neighborhoods, but the high court found that the law's language allowed the sex offenders to avoid the reporting requirements under exceptions similar to those in the older law.

State Sen. Tim Grendell, chairman of the Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice, said lawmakers are working to address both issues.

"Today's decision does not address or invalidate our overall efforts to protect the public by passing the Adam Walsh Act," he said in a statement.

Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Paul Pfeifer and Terrence O'Donnell joined O'Connor in agreeing with the majority on the separation-of-powers issue Thursday. Chief Justice Eric Brown, appointed to replace the late Thomas Moyer, did not participate in the case.

In the sole dissent, Justice Robert Cupp said lawmakers didn't interfere with court decisions in the Adam Walsh Act, but simply ordered the attorney general to transfer offenders from one classification to another based on a set of fixed criteria.

"Rather than burden the courts with sifting the hundreds or thousands of sex offenders to which new and different requirements apply, the General Assembly assigned that administrative task to an executive officer, the attorney general," Cupp wrote.

He said the task "neither requires nor permits the attorney general to open, overturn, or otherwise disturb the final judgments of conviction and sentence of any offender." ..Source.. JULIE CARR SMYTH

Read More of Article...

ARC Talk Radio: Thursday, June 3, 2010 (9 p.m. EST)

6-3-2010 National:

Please join us tonight for a very special show regarding today's Ohio Supreme Court decision. The court held that, the Adam Walsh Act's Classification system violated the "Separations of Powers" clause of the Ohio Constitution.

Attorney Margie Slagle from the Ohio Justice Policy Center will be joining ARC Talk Radio to discuss the court's decision, and what this means for folks in Ohio affected by the decision.

Time: 9:00 PM EST

Call In: (724) 444-7444

Code: 29521#

Arc Talk Radio: CLICK to listen. (At show time click box to hear show)


Read More of Article...

Dying on the State's Dime

6-3-2010 Texas:

A gaunt old man, thick with whiskers and stricken with dementia, writhes under the covers of his bed. Down the hall, doctors monitor elderly diabetics with recently amputated limbs, medicate terminal cancer patients shuffling by with walkers and tether shivering dialysis patients to blood-cleaning machines.

Despite the pacing guards, the handcuffs and the bars on the windows, the geriatric and medical wing at the Estelle Unit in Huntsville looks more like a nursing home than a maximum-security prison.

Prison doctors routinely offer up the oldest and sickest of these inmates for medical parole, a way to get those who are too incapacitated to be a public threat and have just months to live out of medical beds that Texas’ quickly aging prison population needs. They’ve recommended parole for 4,000 such inmates within the last decade. But the state parole board, which makes the final decision on “medically recommended intensive supervision,” has only agreed in a quarter of these cases, leaving the others to die in prison — and on the state’s dime.

Texas’ “geriatric” inmates, classified as those 55 and older, make up just 7.3 percent of Texas’ 160,000-offender prison population. But they account for nearly a third of the system’s hospital costs and make three times as many visits to prison medical departments as younger inmates. Elderly inmates have average annual hospitalization costs of $4,700, compared to $765 for inmates under 55. In total, providing inmate medical care costs the state correctional health care system — already facing hundreds of employee layoffs amid a budget shortfall — nearly half a billion dollars a year.

Parole board members say they’re faced with the difficult task of determining whether an inmate is still dangerous and must err on the side of public safety. “You can be sick, have an illness or a disease, and still be a threat,” said board chair Rissie Owens. “Our decisions aren’t based on numbers, on quotas. And we feel like we’re making good decisions.”

But criminal justice and prison funding experts say leaving elderly, terminally ill inmates to waste away behind bars is often unnecessary and exorbitantly expensive. Those costs would be shared with the federal government if the offenders weren’t in state custody.

“These are totally incapacitated inmates, terminally ill inmates, inmates on respirators, who are not paroled at a huge expense to the state and hardship to the inmate’s family because of the nature of a crime they may have committed 20 or 30 years ago,” said Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who chairs the state Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee. “I think it’s largely for political reasons.”

The cost of care

While the total prison population in Texas isn’t growing, it’s quickly aging. The ranks of geriatric inmates are rising by about 6 percent every year, frightening the budget writers who have to figure out how to pay for them. Health care costs are rising too: The average daily medical bill for Texas inmates grows about 4 percent every year — which is low, compared to some states.

The sickest inmates can each cost the state up to $1 million a year in health care costs. If these same inmates were living in nursing homes or hospice facilities, the federal government — through Medicaid — would pay two-thirds of the cost and save Texas taxpayers up to $50 million a year, according to state projections. If the offenders are eligible for Medicare, the feds would pick up the full tab. “We could be transitioning them to some other facility where state taxpayers wouldn’t have to bear the full health care cost,” said Marc Levin, the director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center For Effective Justice Director, who suggested special nursing homes or hospice centers monitored by parole officers. “It’s a real opportunity to identify some savings without doing anything to endanger public safety.”

But despite the fact that the national one-year recidivism rate for older offenders is miniscule compared to that of younger offenders — 3.2 percent for inmates over 55, compared to 45 percent for inmates between 18 and 29 — an April report by the VERA Institute of Justice, a nonprofit criminal justice policy group, found that the 15 states that allow medical release rarely use it. What stands in the way? Political repercussions, complicated review processes and limited eligibility, the researchers found.

Getting Texas inmates released on medical parole is no easy task. To be eligible for it, an offender can’t be on death row or be serving life without parole, and must be either terminally ill (six months or less to live) or require intensive long-term care, said Dee Wilson, director of the Texas Correctional Office on Offenders with Medical or Mental Impairments. Sex offenders must effectively be in a vegetative state for consideration.

If inmates qualify, the office, in conjunction with the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee, recommends them for medical parole, then submits them to the seven-member Board of Pardons and Paroles for a decision. “It’s all about how long you have to live, and what your prognosis is,” Wilson said. “You can have a terminal illness but still be fully functioning.”

Dying behind bars

The parole board, in turn, relies on a pre-existing condition threshold of sorts. If an inmate with a particular illness commits a crime, Owens said, it’s unlikely he or she will get medical release for that same diagnosis. Some inmates with multiple amputated limbs may look incapacitated, Owens said, but managed to commit their crimes that way. Of the roughly 4,000 inmates prison health officials recommended for medical release in the last decade, the parole board turned down nearly 3,000.

In the last fiscal year alone, more than 440 Texas inmates died in prison. Thirty-one inmates who’d been recommended by medical staff for release died while awaiting the parole board to take up their case; another 26 died after the parole board rejected them for release. Twelve inmates were approved for medical parole but died before they could be sent home.

“There are documented cases where individuals had days or weeks left to live” and were rejected for medical parole, Whitmire said. “I saw no reason why they shouldn’t be paroled so the family could make plans for their funeral.”

Texas is not the only state struggling with skyrocketing prison health care costs and concerns around medical release. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of inmates 55 or older in state and federal prisons grew by more than 75 percent, to 76,000. To date, more than a dozen states have units set aside for elderly inmates; eight have dedicated hospice facilities. Estelle has an impressive medical facility, with a bustling emergency room, high-tech telemedicine equipment and a team of nephrologists that perform 1,800 dialysis treatments a month — sometimes on aggressive or unstable inmates.

“From a medical perspective, I’m comforted that [offenders are] getting a level of care they may not be getting on the street. On the other hand, we’re about to un-employ 363 people,” said Dr. Owen Murray, the chief physician for the University of Texas Medical Branch’s correctional managed care program, which oversees health care for the majority of Texas’ prisoners — and is facing layoffs this summer. “Are there other strategies to reduce our costs? And how do we prevent having to build more expensive units in the future?”

Charles Dill, a 71-year-old offender who started a 20-year sentence in 2000, has been hospitalized multiple times himself for costly heart problems, including getting stents for his carotid arteries. He’s befriended several elderly inmates in Estelle’s geriatric unit, only to watch them die on the ward.

“I’ve seen several of these guys drop over dead,” Dill said, gesturing across a prison dorm room of prosthetic limbs and wheelchairs, adult incontinence products and white-haired men in Coke-bottle glasses. “I guess they completed their sentence.” ..Source.. by Emily Ranshaw

Read More of Article...

Full military burial may be banned for vets guilty of rape

Opinion: No matter what a former military person does later in life, does not change the fact that, s/he served their Country earlier and was honorably discharged. Quite often, the person that entered the military is not the person that leaves the military, and we cannot say what effect that service has on later life. This bill would be likened to an ex post facto violation, if passed!
6-3-2010 Washington DC:

Congress is set to ban full military burials for veterans convicted of forcible rape.

The U.S. House of Representatives adopted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the House. The bill will now go to the Senate.

U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, an Arizona Republican, introduced the measure at the request of a former Phoenix Camelback High School classmate, Steve Bush, who now lives in San Diego. In 2001, Bush's daughter, Jenny, was attacked in Tucson by serial rapist James Allen Selby.

An Army vet who served in the Gulf War, Selby was buried in 2004 at Fort Sill National Cemetery with full military benefits. Selby hanged himself in a Pima County jail cell before he was to be sentenced for 27 counts ranging from sexual assault to attempted murder.

Veterans are currently entitled to be buried in a veterans or national cemetery and to a ceremony presided over by an honor guard, while next of kin receives an American flag and certificate from the president. After the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh in 1995, Congress stripped the burial honors from veterans convicted of capital crimes.

But rapists such as Selby still have the right to such burials.

"I'm elated," said Steve Bush. "There is still another hurdle to clear, but I am overjoyed. This is long overdue. As a veteran myself, I think the circumstances as they are now are an insult to veterans and a slap in the face to victims."

Shadegg said he expects the amendment to stay in the bill because Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is co-sponsoring similar legislation.

"This was really important to me because of Jenny herself and similar victims who are legitimately revictimized when they learn these kinds of honors are afforded to heinous criminals who violently raped them," Shadegg said.

Staff Sgt. Jake Richmond, a spokesman for Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, declined to comment on the legislation.

"Our job here at D-M," he said, "is to follow orders from our leaders." ..Source.. Phil Villarreal Arizona Daily Star

Read More of Article...

Ohio Supreme Court says state may not reclassify convicted sex offenders

6-3-2010 Ohio:

The Ohio Supreme Court today struck down a provision of the state's 2007 sex-offender law, saying it is unconstitutional for the state to reclassify sexual offenders convicted under a previous law.

The ruling means additional reporting requirements imposed on thousands of Ohioans are rescinded and return to what the requirements were before the law, known as the Adam Walsh Act, was passed in 2007.

Attorney General Richard Cordray's office couldn't immediately say how many people would be affected by the ruling, but Jeffrey M. Gamso, a Toledo lawyer who argued the case, estimated it was about 28,000.

Gamso hailed the 6-1 ruling, which held that it was a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine to allow the legislature and attorney general to take action to change past decisions of trial courts.

He argued that the courts previously had decided which sex offenders were most dangerous and required maximum scrutiny, and that adding additional requirements to others was unfair and a waste of resources.

"This ruling will allow law enforcement to focus its efforts on people who are dangerous," he said. "The truth is, we're going back to the restrictions we had before."

The state and other groups argued it was appropriate for the state to take action against the offenders.

Justice Robert R. Cupp dissented, and Justice Terrence O'Donnell concurred with the ruling and dissented in part. ..Source.. Mark Niquette, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Read More of Article...

Ohio Supreme Court: ‘Adam Walsh’ Provision Requiring Attorney General to Reclassify Sex Offenders Violates Separation of Powers

6-3-2010 Ohio:

(June 3, 2010) In a narrowly tailored decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio voided as unconstitutional two sections of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) that authorize the state attorney general to reclassify sex offenders who had already been classified by judges under a previous version of the law, “Megan’s Law.” The Court held that the challenged provisions violate the separation-of-powers doctrine of the Ohio Constitution.

Today’s decision leaves in place all of the law enforcement registration and community notification requirements of the AWA applicable to sex offenders who were classified on or after the Jan. 1, 2008, effective date of that law, and reinstates the pre-AWA registration and community notification requirements that judges had ordered offenders to comply with pursuant to Megan’s Law.

In this case, Christian Bodyke, David Schwab and Gerald Phillips were separately convicted of sex-related crimes prior to 2007. Pursuant to the pre-AWA version of Ohio’s sex offender classification statute (known as Megan’s Law), the trial court in which they were convicted conducted a formal hearing in each case at which the judge reviewed factors enumerated in the statute and issued a final order assigning each of the offenders to a classification that imposed a duty of postrelease registration with the sheriff in their county of residence.

In 2007, the General Assembly enacted the AWA, which repealed the former Megan’s Law classification system and replaced it with a new statutory scheme in which persons convicted of sex crimes after the effective date of the act are categorized as Tier I, Tier II or Tier III offenders based solely on the offenses for which they were convicted. The AWA imposes new postrelease registration and community notification requirements for each tier of offenders that are more restrictive in most cases than the requirements imposed on similar offenders under Megan’s Law.

The 2007 legislation also includes provisions, codified in R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, that order the state attorney general to reclassify all sex offenders who had previously been classified by a court under the Megan’s Law scheme into one of the three new AWA tiers based solely on the crime for which they were convicted. The attorney general was ordered to notify these prior offenders that their reclassification would be effective Jan. 1, 2008, and that as of that date they would be subject to the new AWA registration and community notification requirements applicable to the tier of offenders into which they had been placed.

Bodyke, Schwab and Phillips received letters from the attorney general in November 2007 notifying them that pursuant to the AWA, as of Jan. 1, 2008, they would be reclassified as Tier III offenders and therefore subject to more stringent registration requirements and to community notification requirements to which they had not been subject under their judicially ordered classification under Megan’s Law. All three men appealed their reclassifications on various constitutional grounds to the 6th District Court of Appeals, which consolidated the cases for review. The 6th District rejected the appellants’ arguments, and affirmed their reclassification under the AWA as constitutional. Bodyke sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 6th District’s decision.

Writing for a 5-1 majority of the Court in today’s decision, Justice Maureen O’Connor observed that, just as the judicial branch is bound by the constitution to faithfully apply the law as written by the legislature, the legislative and executive branches are barred by the constitution from enacting or enforcing laws that encroach on the powers of the judiciary.

In this case, she wrote: “The AWA’s provisions governing the reclassification of sex offenders already classified by judges under Megan’s Law violate the separation-of-powers doctrine for two related reasons: the reclassification scheme vests the executive branch with authority to review judicial decisions, and it interferes with the judicial power by requiring the reopening of final judgments. It is well settled that a legislature cannot enact laws that revisit a final judgment. We have held for over a century that ‘the Legislature cannot annul, reverse, or modify a judgment of a court already rendered ...’”

Citing the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 1902 decision in Gompf v. Wolfinger, Justice O’Connor wrote: “‘A judgment which is final by the laws existing when it is rendered cannot constitutionally be made subject to review by a statute subsequently enacted ...’ The reclassification scheme in the AWA works to ‘legislatively vacate the settled and journalized final judgments of the judicial branch of government.’ ... (T)he General Assembly cannot vest authority in the attorney general to reopen and revise the final decision of a judge classifying a sex offender.”

“The power to review and affirm, modify, or reverse other courts’ judgments is strictly limited to appellate courts (under) Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution. The AWA intrudes on that exclusive role and thus violates the separation-of-powers doctrine. Moreover, once the final judgment has been opened, the AWA requires that the attorney general ‘shall determine’ the new classifications of offenders and delinquent children who were classified by judges under the former statutes. ... In doing so, it violates a second prohibition by assigning to the executive branch the authority to revisit a judicial determination. ... Thus, we conclude that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, which require the attorney general to reclassify sex offenders who have already been classified by court order under former law, impermissibly instruct the executive branch to review past decisions of the judicial branch and thereby violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. We further conclude that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, which require the attorney general to reclassify sex offenders whose classifications have already been adjudicated by a court and made the subject of a final order, violate the separation-of-powers doctrine by requiring the opening of final judgments.”

The court’s decision also discussed an important legal doctrine, stare decisis, which provides that judges should follow prior, relevant precedent when deciding cases. Justice O’Connor, who authored the 2003 decision that announced the Ohio standard for overruling precedent, Galatis v. Westfield Insurance Co., clarified Ohio law on stare decisis in two important regards. First, quoting from this Court’s 1989 decision in Rocky River v. State Emp. Relations Bd., she reiterated the rule that ‘stare decisis applies to rulings rendered in regard to specific statutes, [but] it is limited to circumstances “where the facts of a subsequent case are substantially the same as a former case.”’ ... Noting that the AWA is substantially different from Megan’s Law, she concluded that the court’s prior decisions that had upheld that the constitutionality of Megan’s Law were not dispositive of Mr. Bodyke’s appeal, which involved a new statute, the AWA.

Second, Justice O’Connor wrote that “there is a more vital and compelling limitation on the doctrine as it has developed in Ohio: its inapplicability to constitutional claims.” Citing the Court’s decision in Rocky River, she noted that the Court then had acknowledged that stare decisis “does not apply with the same force and effect when constitutional interpretation is at issue.” She expressly stated in today’s opinion that “[n]othing in our decision in Galatis suggests otherwise. Rocky River retains its vitality, at least insofar as this principle is concerned: ‘Stare decisis is not inflexibly applicable to constitutional interpretation.’” Thus, as a result of today’s decision, “Stare decisis remains a controlling doctrine in cases presenting questions on the law of contracts, property, and torts, but it is not controlling in cases presenting a constitutional question.”

As the appropriate remedy for the separation of powers violations identified in today’s decision, the Court held that severance (deletion) of the reclassification provisions (R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032) from the AWA while leaving the remainder of the statute in place would correct the constitutional defect identified by the Court without detracting from “the overriding objective of the General Assembly, i.e. to better protect the public from the recidivism of sex offenders.”

Justice O’Connor’s opinion was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Judith Ann Lanzinger. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer concurred in the majority’s judgment and syllabus holding.

Justice Terrence O’Donnell entered a separate opinion in which he concurred with the portion of the majority opinion with respect to its decision on separation of powers, but dissented from any discussion of stare decisis, which garnered only three votes, because it is not necessary to the determination of the separation of powers issue.

He wrote: “We usually decline to rule on questions that are not necessary to a proper disposition of a case. ... Here, there is no actual controversy between the parties over how the doctrine of stare decisis should apply when the meaning of the Constitution is at issue, and any attempt to unnecessarily decide that question in this case contravenes well-settled law that this court will not issue advisory opinions. ... I am reminded of (U.S. Supreme Court) Chief Justice Roberts’s statement in PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Drug Enforcement Adm.... where he wrote that the ‘the cardinal principle of judicial restraint [is that] if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more ...’”

In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Robert R. Cupp disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the reclassification provisions of the AWA violate the separation of powers doctrine by empowering the attorney general to overturn or vacate the final judgments of state courts. He wrote that, in his view, the inclusion of Bodyke’s classification as a sexually oriented offender in the trial court’s judgment entry in his case did not elevate that classification to a “final judicial judgment” because the classification was required as a matter of law under the former Megan’s Law scheme as a collateral consequence of Bodyke’s conviction for sexual battery.

Justice Cupp noted that in enacting the AWA, the legislature repealed the former offender categories set forth in Megan’s Law and replaced them with the three tiers of the current classification system. He wrote: “Rather than burden the courts with sifting the hundreds or thousands of sex offenders to which new and different requirements apply, the General Assembly assigned that administrative task to an executive officer, the attorney general. For the reasons explained above, however, this task neither requires nor permits the attorney general to open, overturn, or otherwise disturb the final judgments of conviction and sentence of any offender.” ..Source.. The Supreme Court of Ohio

Read More of Article...

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Sexual Predators: NOT an Internet Threat to Kids

8-16-2009 National:

The actual threat is negligible.

Take one newly pervasive communications medium that makes some people apprehensive. Add concern about sexual exploitation of children that makes everyone apprehensive. Stir in a few highly publicized cases of pedophiles luring innocent young kids to horrible fates via email or Facebook. Season with echoes of Hansel and Gretel. And what comes out of the oven? Full-blown hysteria that every child with an Internet connection faces substantial risk from sexual predators.

The hysteria may be real. But the actual threat is negligible.

Last year, the attorneys general of 49 states created the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to investigate sexual solicitation of children by molesters who troll for targets using sites popular with kids, among them, MySpace and Facebook. The 278-page report concluded that there's no real problem.

The task force, led by Harvard researchers, looked at reams of scientific data dealing with online sexual predation and found that children and teens were rarely propositioned for sex by adults who made contact via the Internet. In the handful of cases that have been documented-and highly publicized-the researchers found that the victims, almost always older teenagers, were usually willing participants already at risk for exploitation because of family problems, substance abuse, or mental health issues.

The report concluded that MySpace and Facebook "do not appear to have increased minors' overall risk of sexual solicitation." The report said the biggest risk to kids using social networks was bullying by other kids.

"This study shows that online social networks are not bad neighborhoods on the Internet," said John Cardillo, whose company tracks sex offenders. "Social networks are very much like real-world communities that are inhabited mostly by good people who are there for the right reasons."

Not all the participating attorneys general agreed with the report's conclusions. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal charged that "thousands" of convicted sex offenders are members of social networking sites.

That may well be true, but most "convicted sex offenders" are not predators who molest children. In most states. "sex crimes" include exhibitionism, voyeurism, public urination, transvestism, even ownership of a vibrator. In addition, in some states 18-year-old men have been convicted of statutory rape, a sex crime, for having sex with their fully consenting 17-year-old girlfriends.

Meanwhile, in the small number of cases where child molesters have connected with children online, most of the encounters have followed a predictable pattern: online contact, leading to telephone contact, ultimately leading to face-to-face meetings. But notice that those who are up in arms about the supposed hazards of social networking sites seem unconcerned about the key role that the telephone plays in the sexual exploitation of children. Why is that?

I think it's because the telephone is an old technology fully integrated into our culture. The Internet is still new, and kids use it more than adults, which makes many adults nervous that something nefarious must be going on. But according to the attorneys general report, next to nothing is. ..Source.. Michael Castleman

Read More of Article...

Opinion: Technical Difficulties at the Supreme Court

6-2-2010 Washington DC:

(June 1) -- If you're in America and not yet acquainted with cell phones, computers and the Internet, you must have spent the past decade under a rock. Or be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices lately have displayed a startling level of ignorance about computing and communication methods that many Americans take for granted. Yet, as members of the nation's highest court, they're increasingly setting legal precedents about these very technologies.

At a November oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts, who reportedly drafts his opinions with pen and paper instead of a keyboard, compared a software program being executed on a computer with a typewriter typing out words on a piece of paper. He also referred to Internet search engines as a "search station."

In an April oral argument, Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered what would happen if a text message were sent to someone at the same time he was communicating with someone else. "[Does] he ha[ve] a voicemail saying that 'Your call is very important to us; we'll get back to you'?" Kennedy asked, eliciting laughter from those in attendance.

The justices' tech-cluelessness was not just an irrelevant oops, but actually incredibly important in the two cases: applying intellectual property law and interpreting the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Most recently, during a congressional subcommittee meeting two weeks ago, Justice Antonin Scalia admitted he didn't know about the popular social networking service Twitter. "I don't even know what it is ... But, you know, my wife calls me 'Mr. Clueless,'" he said.

These are just a few examples. No wonder the Court is often criticized for being out of touch with ordinary people.

Of course, it is far better that justices ask dumb questions than just form an opinion without the answers. No one is an expert in everything. Most Americans would undoubtedly seem equally foolish if questioned about a Constitutional law issue, such as the Commerce Clause.

However, technology touches virtually every aspect of our lives and often is affected by laws. With the Federal Communications Commission now aggressively attempting to regulate the Internet, cyberbullying testing the limits of free speech in schools, and bloggers seeking the same rights as journalists, the Court will invariably be called upon to make judgments that relate to technology.

It's crucial for our most important decision-makers to have at least a rudimentary understanding of technologies most Americans can't imagine living without. If the Court can't grasp how business inventions have changed since the Industrial Revolution, or how communication methods have changed since Alexander Graham Bell, then they might make decisions that misapply the law due to a misunderstanding of the facts about technology.

In order to modernize the Supreme Court, future appointees -- beginning with Elena Kagan, whom President Obama in May nominated to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens -- should be vetted for their tech savvy.

Current Court members need to take the initiative to change themselves. While technology has forced workers in many industries to retool or retire, justices can't be required to change because they enjoy lifelong appointments.

Fortunately, they need not even leave their ivory tower for assistance. Many rely heavily on their law clerks to do everything from research to write their opinions. Clerks tend to be tech literate 20- and 30-somethings fresh out of law school, which may explain why the justices' bloopers occur in the off-the-cuff environment of oral arguments rather than in opinions. But, ultimately, technology is best learned through hands-on usage, not from reading a legal memo.

Perhaps they can follow the lead of Justice Stephen Breyer, who said he learned about Twitter by sitting down with his son for a lesson.

"Remember when we had that disturbance in Iran?" Breyer said at the congressional subcommittee meeting two weeks ago. "My son said, 'Go look at this.' And oh, my goodness. I mean, there were some Twitters, I called them, there were people there with photographs as it went on. And I sat there for two hours absolutely hypnotized. And I thought, 'My goodness, this is now, for better or for worse ... not the same world'. It's instant and people react instantly."

Breyer, obviously, has some catching up to do on the Digital Age. But it's a start. And it's better than being complacent with being "clueless."

As Breyer noted about the Internet: "It's not something that's going to go away." ..Source.. Mark Grabowski is a media law professor at Adelphi University in New York.

Read More of Article...